- From: Trish Whetzel <whetzel@pcbi.upenn.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Hi Alan, I meant to refer to the portion of the identifier 'GO#0000001' as in the example below with respect to OWL ontologies. My understanding is that when building an ontology using Protege/OWL, it would be best to use GO_0000001 in the rdf:ID field (perhaps that is not correct?). When using OBO-Edit, the idspace can be set separately and the unique numeric identifiers are generated with code built into the editor. There is a plugin to generate unique identifiers for Protege/OWL that was obtained in response to a post to the Protege/OWL list and has since been modified to allow one to set the idspace as well as part of the identifier that is in the rdf:ID field. Since reading your post to the obo-format list I'll check this out with SWOOP. Trish > What was the specifics of the argument for alphanumeric versus numeric > identifiers? > > If you check out the go-format list I recently sent some examples that > use identifiers of the form > > http://www.bioontologies.org/2006/02/obo/GO#0000001 > > Details are in > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=24431577 > > BTW, all of them are alphanumeric in the sense that they are URIs. But a > little care needs to be taken because of qnames, etc. used in xml. > Nothing that can't be worked around in a reasonable manner.
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 12:13:32 UTC